There are bots that are capable of beating professional players today. Is poker not the right game for them either?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris_(poker_bot)

Hands in limit poker nearly always have a mathematically correct way to play; if a program executes the correct play every time and isn't figured out as a bot the program stands a pretty good chance of being profitable.

Most human players don't have the advantage of being able to memorize the correct action for every scenario, a well written bot has an absolute advantage with regards to the math involved.

Additionally, a poker bot remembers every hand it's ever played, as well as every hand it's ever seen played - there has been poker software available for many years that will analyze other player's play for weaknesses which can be trivially exploited. I would assume diligent poker bot creators know about this type of thing and are taking advantage of that as well.

Ok, calm down.

I should've clarified no limit. This article is presumably talking about no limit - since that is by far the predominant game.

With all due respect, you have a poor understanding of poker if you really think there is a way to "memorize the correct action for every scenario". Poker is about interaction, spotaneity, 'feel', instinct. Mastering those things is where to get a real edge, not math - particularly in no limit. Hence my comment.

I'm sure I have a lot of room to improve my game; I've only got around 125k hands logged and haven't played seriously in 4 or 5 years.

That being said, I'm fairly certain the article was not talking about no-limit. The vast majority of poker bots play limit, where there is a clear advantage from playing the mathematically correct way.

The idea that you can play winning poker with "spontaneity" and "feel" is exactly how these bots make money. I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you. If you really care, spend more than 30 seconds reading up about the mechanics of limit poker.

I would suggest starting here, since it has a reasonably compact rundown of the math behind the game:

http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Poker-Professional-Player-Teach...

There is at least as clear an advantage from playing 'mathematically correct' in no limit. It would be a much more difficult bot to write because adding the bet size variable would greatly increase the complexity of the math, but it could also probably outperform human players by a much greater margin for the same reason.

An objection that could be raised is that psychological factors carry more weight in no limit, especially short term psychology (recognizing when a player is on tilt), but I see no reason why a sophisticated program couldn't integrate these factors better than a human. Psychology in online poker is really just pattern analysis.

Wrong, there is a GTO strategy that a bot could employ which is the correct action for every scenario. Actually, it wouldn't be the same action every time for the same scenario, instead randomly bluffing with the correct frequency. You could try to guess all you want but it wouldn't matter. No amount of feel or instinct would allow you to beat it.

And what if several of them sit at your table and collude?

Would that actually be an advantage? I mean the bots are going to win more often that the other players, but on the other hand, they would also be at least twice as expensive to use.

Collusion absolutely provides unfair advantages (which is why it's against the rules).

Poker is a game of incomplete information. The more information you possess, the better your odds are of making the right decision.

So, in the instance of 2 poker bots colluding on a table (the 4 suits are (c)lubs (d)iamonds (s)pades (h)earts):

  Bot 1 has Ac5h and discards pre-flop (no money spent)
  Bot 2 has KcQc and calls. 
  Player 3 calls
  Player 4 calls
  All other players discard

  The flop comes up: 5c 10c 9c

At this point, Bot 2 has an excellent hand (a King-high flush), but it doesn't have the best possible hand; it's vulnerable to a higher flush due to the Ace. However, the because bot 1 & 2 have colluded, it knows with 100% certainty that it has an unbeatable hand and can play accordingly.

This is a pretty weak example, but it's the easiest I could think of without assuming any knowledge of poker. Having knowledge of cards that have been in play significantly increases a player's ability to make decisions in a way that give that player an unfair advantage.

> it knows with 100% certainty that it has an unbeatable hand

While your example is a good one, the bot actually doesn't have an unbeatable hand. Another player could have trips or 4/5 of a straight flush and hit a better hand (quads or a straight flush) on the turn/river. Or the board could pair twice and give someone a full house. Unlikely in any case, but not out of the realm of possibilities by any means.

Haha damnit, you're right. Thanks for pointing that out!

anyone with 130k hands would've caught that :)

but seriously, he means if the board is like: 2c 3c 7c Tc 4h, (not that he'd get much value from the guy with the lone Jc, though)

think of how easy squeezing is with two colluding bots.

The problem was that I changed the example after typing everything up. The first contrived example I came up with used a hand that Bot 1 wouldn't have realistically thrown away. My fault for not proof-reading :D

A more subtle example involves advertising. You want both to remain at the table. One is getting low. Then they both bet into a pot aggressively, everyone else drops out, then the richer one folds and the poor one shows the bluff. Now money has been transferred, and the table thinks one of the bots is a loose player.

Thanks, it didn't occur to me that you can discard pre-flop.

If you have N seats, you have better odds for the best hand than you do with N-1 seats, yes, but what's even more important than that is that you know what cards the other players don't have. You have considerably more information, and this is absolutely essential. Collusion is the big problem with bots, not just smart logic.

I haven't played Hold 'em since fixed limit died (RIP party poker) but knowing even just two additional cards would be a tremendous advantage. You have an easy fold in small pots if you know you only have 5 outs vs 7 (overcard and gutshot draw). Hell you probably couldn't even be beat in the short run if you knew of 4 additional cards in addition to your hole cards.

Chess used to be like that